Hi Bruno,
On 1/27/20 2:09 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
>> Not sure if the compiler is correct here, but maybe worth a look:
>>
>> hash.c:549:11: error: implicit conversion from 'unsigned long' to
>> 'float' changes value from 18446744073709551615 to 18446744073709551616
>> [-Werror,-Wimplicit-int-float
I wrote:
> And I dislike it because the transformation is correct only if
> (float) SIZE_MAX >= SIZE_MAX. In the other case,
> (float) SIZE_MAX < SIZE_MAX, the transformation is incorrect
> [think of the particular value new_candidate = (float) SIZE_MAX].
Ouch, I was assuming that the comparison s
Paul Eggert wrote:
> In the past I've worked around problems like these by writing things
> like "SIZE_MAX + 1.0f <= new_candidate" instead of "SIZE_MAX <=
> new_candidate"
This may deserve a warning that adding 1.0f does not change the value.
> Presumably the Clang folks want us to insert a ca
On 1/27/20 5:09 AM, Bruno Haible wrote:
IMO you should file a ticket with the clang people.
That sounds appropriate.
In the past I've worked around problems like these by writing things
like "SIZE_MAX + 1.0f <= new_candidate" instead of "SIZE_MAX <=
new_candidate" (partly under the argument
Hi Tim,
> Not sure if the compiler is correct here, but maybe worth a look:
>
> hash.c:549:11: error: implicit conversion from 'unsigned long' to
> 'float' changes value from 18446744073709551615 to 18446744073709551616
> [-Werror,-Wimplicit-int-float-conversion]
> if (SIZE_MAX <= new_candi
Not sure if the compiler is correct here, but maybe worth a look:
hash.c:549:11: error: implicit conversion from 'unsigned long' to
'float' changes value from 18446744073709551615 to 18446744073709551616
[-Werror,-Wimplicit-int-float-conversion]
if (SIZE_MAX <= new_candidate)
^
